photo">
In the case of corruption against the former mayor of the capital’s Mladost district Desislava Ivancheva, her deputy Biliana Petrova and Petko Dyulgerov, no provocation was made to bribe by the main witness – the construction entrepreneur Alexander Vaklin. In addition, the possible violation of human rights in the detention of the two women on April 17, 2018 has nothing to do with the case.
This is stated in the reasons for the convictions of the three, handed down by the Appellate Specialized Criminal Court in early July 2020. They were published 9 months after the decision, the website “De Facto” reported on Thursday.
The panel of the special court of appeal, chaired by Georgi Ushev, sentenced Ivancheva to eight years in prison on July 6 last year, reducing her initial 20-year sentence. Petrova and Dyulgerov received 7 and 6 years in prison, respectively, on charges of aiding and abetting the former mayor.
The second instance court found Ivancheva guilty of both charges – that she asked for and received a bribe from Vaklin in order to move documents on his construction project. According to the special prosecutor’s office, she initially requested 250,000 euros, then reduced the amount to 187,500 euros, and finally took 70,000 euros. This was the amount found in marked banknotes in Ivancheva and Petrova’s car on the day of their arrest.
Turn with the provocation to bribe
At first instance, Judge Ivo Hinov found the three defendants guilty only of soliciting bribes, but handed down heavier sentences – 20, 15 and 12 years in prison, respectively, because the qualifications of the prosecution were different – bribery in a particularly large amount, representing a judge.
The second instance categorically rejected the provocation to bribery found by Judge Hinov, stating that witness Vaklin “at no time was the active party in the inclusion of additional property in the corruption deal.”
“For the composition of the offense, it is necessary to deliberately bow down, persuade and motivate the provocateurs to accept or give a damn, in order to be able to do so. There is no provocation when the official has previously requested bribery, “said the court panel, chaired by Georgi Ushev.
The question of whether there is evidence of a provocation to bribe is crucial in these cases, as it is a crime within the meaning of the Criminal Code. The first instance not only found such data in the case of Ivancheva, but even defined Vaklin as a “de facto agent of the state prosecution.”
There is no evidence of a link between Vaklin and the prosecution
However, the appellate special court did not find any evidence of the construction contractor’s connection with the prosecutor’s office. In 2019, it became clear that the woman next to the then Deputy Chief Prosecutor and current head of the Prosecutor’s Office Ivan Geshev – Detelina Hancheva, is related to Mario Karkovski, who in turn has companies in common with Vaklin.
Subsequently, the civil movement BOEC submitted a signal insisting on an investigation into the case. The organization’s doubts were that, as head of the special prosecutor’s office, Geshev may have benefited Hancheva, who had acquired property from Karkovski’s companies.
However, the inspection of the special prosecutor’s office did not find anything wrong, and the appellate special prosecutor’s office confirmed its refusal to initiate an investigation. The ruling of the second instance stated that “Ivan Geshev had known Karkovski for many years and the two were on friendly terms”, but “there is no evidence or indication that Ivan Geshev used his official position in forming the sales prices of the real estates purchased by Hancheva ”.
Similarly thinking and appellate specialized criminal court: “B xoda na docadebnoto, na papvoinctantsionnoto and na vazzivnoto ppoizvodctvo in low deloto, cashto taka DO NOT Conceptual, logical konctatipano nalichieto na kakvato and ea an OLAF clyzhebna or dpyga zavicimoct mezhdy cvidetelyat Alekcandap Baklin and ppokypatypata, kakto and KPKOHPI , and an MBP to monitor Witness Bucklin’s intent and to testify against the defendants. “
Human rights are irrelevant
The second instance also ignored Judge Hinov’s finding that “the prosecution had not made the necessary efforts to protect the rights and legitimate interests of the two women at the time of their arrest.”
Ivancheva and Petrova stood for hours in front of the sports ministry building in Sofia, while investigators described the banknotes found. At one point, a masked employee of the Anti-Corruption Commission (KPKONPI) even shut the former mayor’s mouth so that she could not speak to the gathered media.
Appeal spetssad did not pay nimanie the issue of human rights, noting that he “podlezhi na obcazhdane in dpygo ppoizvodctvo (gpazhdancko takova) and have failed peflektipa vapxy validnoctta na izvapshenite ppotsecyalno-cledctveni deyctviya in low deloto and cabpanite dokazatelctva.”
– .
